RE: [Ltru] Referencing the Scheme within the Tag

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

Hi Jefsey

I do not wish to add more information into the tag.  I just want to
reference the scheme.  The fact that the scheme MAY be updated in the future
to include additional information is part of the reason for requiring the
reference.

Kind regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: r&d afrac [mailto:rd at afrac.org]
> Sent: 04 July 2005 01:42
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Referencing the Scheme within the Tag
> 
> On 20:59 03/07/2005, Debbie Garside said:
> > > The 3066bis scheme represents a narrowing of the 3066 grammar for
> language
> > > tags. Unlike 3066, it represents a full description of every subtag,
> > > including those unassigned by 3066bis. It will not be possible to
> create a
> > > new, different, grammar for language tags without breaking
> compatibility
> > > with 3066bis.
> >
> >I am not talking backward compatibility, I'm talking forward
> extensibility,
> >and retrieval for future maintenance and update procedures in a
> particular
> >industry.
> 
> Debbie,
> Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to that,
> except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47) This not possible, the net
> is
> not to be narrowed but scaled.
> 
> I have a question: Addison puts already too many information in his tag
> (too many, because they can have unexpected conflicts). Why do you want to
> add more? You do not have conflict in adding specialised metatags. What is
> actually the odd idea is an ABNF langtag when an XML or other open format
> could have solved all these problems much more simply?
> 
> jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru